F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

A L P H O N S E C H A R

L E S B A S S E

N E , P etitioner
,

v

.

E R I C H. H O L D E R , J R ., Attorney General, Respondent

. N o. 07-75022

Ag ency No. A076-389-204

ORDER AND AMENDED OPI NI ON

O n Petition for Review of an Order of the B oard of I

mmig ration Appeals

Arg ued and Submitted October 12, 2012—Pasadena, California

F iled J uly 23, 2013 Amended September 23, 2013

B efore: Harry

Preg erson and W illiam A. F letcher, Circuit J udg es, and L awrence L

. Piersol, Senior District J udg e. *

Order; Opinion by

J udg e Preg erson

* T h e Ho n o rab le L aw

ren ce L

. Pierso l, Sen i o r District J u d g e f o r th e U .S. District Co u

rt f o r th e District o f

So u th Dak o ta, sittin g b y

d esig n atio n

.B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 2

SUMMARY * *

Im m igration

The panel g ranted a petition for review o f the B oard o f I m m i g ration Appeals’ decision deny ing o n adverse credi b i l i t y g rounds asy lum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention A g ainst Torture to a native and citiz en of Seneg al.

The panel held that the B oard erred by d r awing an adve rs e inference from the low level of detail about
perse c u t ion provided in petitioner’s mistakenly filed N-400 citiz enship a

pplication, which was n ot de s ig ned to elicit information about p ersecution. The p anel f urther held tha t

s u bstantial evidence did not support the B oard’s findin g o f inconsistencies between petitioner’s N-400 application a nd his later filed I -589 asy lum application. The panel remanded for further consideration taking petitioner’s testimony a s credible.

COUNSEL

N e n e Thiaba Mour Samb (arg ued), Samb and Associates
, L L C, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Petitioner.

Marion E. Guy

ton (arg ued), Trial A t t o rney , Office o f I mmig r a tion L itig ation Civil Division, Unit ed States Department of J ustice, W ashing ton, D.C., for Respondent.

** T h is su m m ary co n stitu

t es n o p ar t o f t h e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co u rt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 3

ORDER

The Opi n i o n f

iled on J uly 2 3, 2013 is a mended a s follows:

On slip o pinion pag e 9, line 1 8, remove the f o l l o wing
tex t:

<W e ag ree with the I J ’s d ec ision to treat the
one-y ear f

i ling r equirement for asy lum a s running from th e day B assene’s J -1 visa

ex p ired. W e a lso ag ree with the I J ’s decision
to treat B assene’s mistaken l y filed N-400 citiz enship applica tion as a quasi-asy lum application and w e fi n d that it was timely filed within the one-y ear period.>

On pag e 9, line 18, insert the following tex t:

<The I J a l s o decided to treat B a ssene’s

m i s t a k e n l y f iled N-400 c itiz enship applicatio n as a quasi-asy

lum application.>

OP INION

PREGERSON, Circuit J udg e :

Alphonse Charles Ba s s ene (“B assene”), a native a nd citiz en of Seneg al, petitions for r e v i e w of the B oard o f I mmig r a tion Appeals (“B I A”) decision d e ny ing his application for asy lum, withholding of r e m o v al, and relief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture (“CAT”).B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 4

B a ssene soug h t lawful s t at u s in the United States b y mistakenly filing an N-400 c itiz enship application instead o f filing a n I -589 asy lum applicat i o n

. He attached a one-pag e statement to his citiz enship application ex plaining that he h ad

ex p ected to see questions asking if he had been persecuted for his ethnicity or political beliefs in Seneg al, becau se these

were the reasons he was seeking r efug e in the United States. After B assene’s N-400 citiz enship a p plication was denied, an I mmig r a tion and Naturaliz ation Servic e s O f ficer directed him
to file a n asy lum application. I n his I -589 asy lum applica t i o n , B assene answered questions about the political and ethnic persecution h e e x perienced in g reat detail. The answers in B assene’s I

- 589 application were consistent with the testimon y h e ga ve at his removal hearing

. The I mmig r a tion J udg e (“I J ” ) f ound that B assene was not credible, however, b ecause Ba s sene had not supplied the same level of detail about persecution when he filled out his mistakenly filed N-400 citiz enship a p p l i cation. The B I A affirmed.

W e hold t h at substantial evidence does not support the B I A’s adverse credibility finding

. The I J should not have drawn an adverse inference from the low level of detail about persecution provided in B assene’s N-400 c itiz e nship application, w hich is not d esig ned to elicit information about persecution. The B I A erred when it adopted the I J ’ s f lawed reasoning

. The B I A also erred when it found t h a t Ba s sene

was not credible o n the g round t h at h is citiz enship a nd
asy lum applications were inconsistent. W e have jurisdiction

u n der 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We g r a n t the petition for r e v i e w , vacate t h e B I A’s a dverse credibility finding
, and remand to the B I A to determine whether B assene is elig ible for asy lum.B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 5

BACK G ROUND

A. Bassene’s Rem oval P roceedings

The fa c ts of B assene’s case compel us to conclude that the B I A’s adverse credibi l i t y f inding is not supported b y

s u b stantial evidence. At h is Aug ust 29, 2006 remova l hearing
, B a ssene testified ab o u t the ethnic and political persecution he ex perienced while living in Seneg al. B assene g rew u p in southern Seneg al’s Casamance reg ion, in the town of Z ing uinchor. B assene testified that if he returns to Seneg al he will be persecuted b e c a use of his Diola ethnicity and his affil iation w ith the a

r med w ing of the Movement of the Democratic F orces of the Casamance (“MF DC”). The armed wing o f the MF DC is a separatist org aniz ation that demands independence for southern Seneg al’s Casamance reg ion and has been in an armed conflict with the Seneg alese military since the early

1980s.

1. Bassene’s Diola ethnicity

B a ssene and his family are D iola, a minority ethnic g roup in Seneg al. B assene is recog niz able as Diola because of his family name. F rom 1990 to 1 997, B assene attended the University o f Dakar on a g overnment scholars h i p

. B assene testified that in the capital city of D akar, the Diola people a re not well-respected because they have a reputation for being instig a tors o f r ebellion. B assene contends that h e wa s a t o p university student study ing Spanish and was set to receiv e a scholarsh ip to study abroad in Spain, but was replaced with

a non-Diola student a t the last minute a nd had to remain in Seneg al.B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 6

2. Bassene’s affiliation with the MFDC

I n 1986, when B assene was eig hteen y ears old, his family

was f orcefully recruited into financially supporting the MF DC. Six g unmen f

rom the movement’s armed w i ng intruded into h is family ’s home in the late evening h o urs. Aft er B assene’s mother and sisters were moved to another location within B assene’s f amily ’ s h ome, the g unmen demanded that B assene and h is f ather join the MF DC to h elp
g ain g r eater prosperity for t h e r eg ion. B assene’s father initially r efused. The g unmen said if B assene’s father wanted
to live, his family needed to be involved with t h e M FD C in

some way

. B a ssene’s family opted to c ontribute about $6 per month to the MF DC. B assene’s mother and two sisters, w ho still live in Seneg al, continue to pa y t h is contribution under threat of retaliation. The B assenes were issued a family card
to demonstrate their affiliation with the armed w i n g o f the MF DC. The MF DC also has a distinct a n d l e g al political wing

. B assene testified that he is sy mpathetic to the peaceful objectives of the MF D C ’ s political wing

. He once participated in a larg e e vent org aniz ed b y the political wing of the MF DC in 1992, whose purpose w as to restore peace in Seneg al.

Several of B assene’s family members have been killed o r have lost their homes because of the conflict between the armed wing of the MFD C a n d the Seneg alese g overnment. Two of B assene’s male cousins joined the armed w ing of the MF DC in 1991. After a Seneg alese military raid in 1993, the

area where the men were camping was burned, the y were arrested by the mil i t a r y , and they were never h e ard from
ag ain. B assene’s aunt’s villag e w as burne d a n d she lost her home as a result of the c o nflict between the Seneg alese
g overnment and the MF DC’s armed wing

. As of 2001, overB A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 7

a hundred civilians have been ex trajudicially ex ecuted o r “disappeared by ” the S eneg alese military
, and doz ens have been de l i b e r a t ely or a

r bitrarily killed by the armed wing o f the MF D C.

I n 1 992, Ba s sene was detained, arrested, and beaten b y the Seneg alese mili tary because of his affiliation with the MF DC’s a

rmed wing

. B assene was t r aveling home from school on the Thursday before the Easter holiday

. W hile passing throug h a checkpoint, B assene w a s d etained a nd searched b y the Seneg alese military

. A fter the soldiers f ound B assene’s MF DC card, they escorted B assene t o a small building f

or ques t i o ning

. B assene told the soldiers that he

was a student a

nd that he had been forced to carry the MF DC card.

The soldiers took B assene to jail and placed him in a c ell with five o ther men. The soldiers b e a t Ba ssene and made derog atory c omments about his Diola heritag e

. There was no running water in the cell. I t was not until the following morning
, on F r iday
, that the men were g iven some food a nd al l o w ed to g o to the bathroom. The soldiers questioned B assene for an additional six hours that day

.

On Saturday morni n g at 2:00 a.m., the soldiers p laced a call to the University of Dakar. T h e University confirmed that B assene w as a full-time student. B assene paid a $30 fine and was subsequently released. A t the time of his release, B assene’s face was bleeding and swollen from being pushed into a wall by a soldier. The soldier escorting B assene o ut o f jail threatened him, say ing the nex t time he was caug ht by the military , “that will be the end of it.”B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 8

B a ssene f

ears that if h e retu r ns to Seneg al he will be arrested and interrog ated reg ardin g h is whereabouts for the past nine y ears. B assene a lso believes that i f h e r eturns to Seneg al, the MF DC’s armed wing will attempt to recruit him

a g ain. He does not believe the Seneg alese g overnment w i l l be able to protect him from the MF DC’s armed wing

.

3. B assene’s immigration proceedings in the United States

B a ssene was leg ally admitte d t o the United States on November 27, 1997, o n a J

- 1 cultural ex chang e visa. B assene

c a m e t o t he United States from Seneg al to participate in an internship prog ram in h otel manag ement. His visa ex pired a y ear-and-a-half later on J une 29, 1 999. B a s s en e w anted to stay in the United States leg ally

. He fea red returning to Seneg al because he h ad been arrested, d etained, b ea ten, a nd threatened by the Seneg alese military

. A n American colleg e student who w a s an acquaintance of B assene’s advised B assene to apply for United States citiz enship. A s a r esult, B assene mistakenly believed that he could obtain lawful
status in the United States based on his f ear of persecution in Seneg al by

filing an N-400 citiz enship application.

On November 1, 19 9 9
, B a ssene filed an N-400 c itiz e nship appl i c a tion. The N-400 citiz e nship application requests information f

rom the a

pplic a n t setting forth his or her elig ibility for citiz enship, inc luding lawful p ermanent residency s tatus and compliance with immig ration laws. Question 15 asked if B assene had been arrested for “breaking

or violating any law or ord i n a n ce.” B assene checked a box indicating that he h ad n e v e r been arrested for those reasons. Part 9 of the citiz enship a pplication asked B assene to list his affiliations with “org aniz ation[ s] .” B assene did not d iscloseB A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 9

his membership in the armed wing of the MF DC because he was forced to be a member of the org a niz ation.

B a ssene atta ched a one-pag e statement to his N-400 citiz enship application to convey that he feared returning to Seneg al b e ca u se he ex p e c ted to see a question about persecution in his home country . I n the one-pag e statement, B assene elaborated, in g eneral terms, o n the turbulent situation in his home reg ion o f Casamance. B assene’s N-400 application for citiz enship was denied on J uly 20, 2000, and B assene requested a hearing on the denial.

On F ebruary 15, 2 001, B a ssene met with an I mmig r ation and Naturali z at i on Service officer. The officer conducted a de novo review of B assene’s N-400 c i tiz enship a pplication and f ound B a ss ene inelig ible for n aturaliz ation. The officer told B assene that he could apply for a sy lum. The officer g ave B assene an I -589 asy lum application; a list of the countries whose n ationals were elig ible f or asy lu m , w ithholding o f removal, or CAT relief; and a list of free leg al services.

On March 8, 2001, B assene submitted his I -58 9 a s y lum applica tion that he completed without the assistance o f counsel. I n his asy lum a

pplication, B assene provided detailed
accounts of the nig ht in 1986 when his family was forced to join the a rmed wing of the MF DC. B assene also described his 1992 arrest by

the Seneg alese military

.

Several y e ars later, o n Aug ust 29, 2006, B assene appeared b e f

ore the I J in San Dieg o a t his removal hearing

.B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 10

B assene conceded removability and asked f or asy lum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. 1

B. The IJ G r ants the Exceptional Circum stances Exception f

or Asylum

At the r e m o v al hearing
, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) arg ued that B assene was inelig ible for
asy lum because he filed h is application after the o n e-y e ar period desig nated by statute. S e e 8 U.S.C. § 1 158(a)(2)(B ). B assene submitt e d his citiz enship application almost two
y ears after he arrived in the United States, an d a bout six months after his J -1 visa ex pired. B assene arg ued that he was

ex e mpted fro m the one y ear filing period under the “ex traordinary circumstances” ex ception because he filed the N-400 citiz enship application less than six months after his J

1 visa ex pired. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). T h e I J ag r eed. The I J also d ecided to treat B assene’s mistakenly filed N-400 citiz enship application as a quasi-asy lum application.

C. The IJ F inds that Bassene is Not Credible

At the removal hearing

on Aug ust 29, 2006, the I J asked B assene why he h ad not disclosed that he was arrested by the Seneg alese military in the one-pag e statement he attached to his N-400 c itiz enship applicatio n

. Bassene r esponded: “I

was a rr e s t ed

. I d on’t know why I didn’t (indiscernable) but I was.” Moments later, the I J notified B assene’s attorney that

1 W e ap p ly pre- REAL I D A ct stan d ard s b ecau se B assen e f iled h is
ap p licatio n f

o r relief o n No v em

b er 1
, 19 9 9
, w

h ich w as b ef

o re May 1 1
, 2 0 0 5
, t h e e ff ectiv e d ate o f th e REA L ID A ct. S ee S i n h a v. H

o ld er , 5 6 4 F.3 d 1 0 1 5, 10 2 1 n .3 (9 th Cir. 2 00 9 ) (ap p ly in g th e p re- REA L ID A ct stan d ard ).B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 11

the b ig g est p roblem in B a ssen e ’ s case was credibility

. Bassene’s attorney arg ued that the purpose of the one-pa ge statement attached to the N -400 citiz e nship application was to “tell our Government that [ B assene] mig ht not be filing the

c o rrect form but [ B assene] didn’t want to g o back to h i s country .” I n its closing arg ument, DHS admitted that B assene was credible, stating : “The g overnment f ee l s that overall he has b e e n a v ery credible witness.” Nonetheless, DHS declined to stipulate to B assene’s credibility

.

D. The IJ and BIA Decisions

O n A u gust 29, 2006, the I J denied B assene’s claim for
asy lum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. The I J denied asy lum an d withholding of removal because he found that B assene w as not credible. The I J conclu d e d t hat the one-pag e statement B assene attached t o t h e N-400 citiz enship application showed that he submitted the application to “convey to the United St ates Government the basis of h is fear to allow him to stay in” the U nited States. The I J stated that he w as willing to e x c u s e minor omissions from the N-400, but h e was not w illi n g t o e x cuse B a ssene’s omission “that he was arrested and detained for two or three day s[ ,] and mistreated and interrog ated by the Seneg alese military .” The I J also denied relief under CAT.

The B I A adopted the I J ’s adverse credibility f inding and also found that B assene failed to meet his burden of proof for relief. The B I A noted two al l e ge d inconsistencies b etween B assene’s N -400 citiz enship a p plication and his I -589 asy lum application: (1) B assene di d not mention his arrest b y the Seneg alese military a

n d ex plicitly denied being “arrested, i m p r i soned, or fined” in his N-400 citiz enship application;B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 12

and, (2) B assene “failed to reveal his alleg ed membership in MF DC” in his N-400 citiz enship application.

STANDARD AND SCOP E OF REVIEW

Credibility determinations are reviewed f or substantial evi d e nce. Rizk v. Holder
, 629 F .3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011). Under th e s ubstantial e vidence standard, an adverse credibili ty finding is “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary

. ” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). T h e BI A g ives deference to an I J ’s credibility finding because the I J is in the best p osition to assess the trustworthiness of the appl i cant’s testimony

. S

e e Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft
, 329 F .3d 655, 661–62 (9th C i r. 2003). W here, as here, the B I A summarily affirms an I J ’ s d e c ision a n d d o es not ex pressly conduct a de novo review we may “ l o ok to the I J ’ s oral decision as a g uide to what lay behind the B I A’s conclusion.” Ahmed v. Keisler , 504 F .3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007).

D ISCUSSION

A. The Lack of Detail in Ba ssene’s Mistakenly F iled N400 C itizenship Application D oes Not Support the BIA’s Adverse Credibility F inding

The I J a nd B I A d

rew an a dverse inference f r o m the omission of B assene’s arrest and detention by the Seneg alese military from his N -400 citiz en ship a pplication. However, the N-400 citiz enship application was not desig ned t o e l i cit information about persecuti o n

. “ [ T] he I J had no reason to ‘ex pect’ to be told o f ‘persecution and assaults’ on [ B assene

o r his] family ” in B assene’s mistakenly filed N-400 citiz enship a

pplication. Joseph v. Holder
, 600 F .3d 1235,B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 13

1242–43 ( 9th Cir. 2 010) (internal quotation marks omitted ) (revers i n g adverse credibility finding that relied on differences between bond hearing testimony and removal hearing testimony )

.

I n short, the I J c o ncluded that B assene was not credible because he did not include e vidence of political a nd ethnic persecution in his N-400 citiz enship a p plication, information
t h at would have been relevant h ad he filed an I -5 8 9 application for asy lum. T h at B a s sene filed an initial N-400 citiz enship a

pplication that “was not as complete as mig ht be desired” of an I -5 8 9 a sy lum application “cannot, without
more, serve as a basis for a finding of lack of credibi l ity .’” Smolniakova v

. G onzales
, 422 F .3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Lopez-Reyes v. I NS
, 79 F .3d 908, 9 11 (9th Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). B assene provided information on the ethnic and pol i tical persecution he

ex p erienced in Seneg al in the I -589 asy lum ap p l i c a t ion that he was later instructed to file.

Moreover, the I J speculated that because B assene was an educated person, he should have known to mention h is arrest and detention by the Seneg a lese mil i t ar y in his mistakenly filed N-400 citiz enshi p application. B ut “[ s] peculation a nd conjecture c annot form the basis o f an adverse credibility finding .” Shah v. INS , 220 F .3d 1062, 1071 (9th Cir. 2000). W e hold that the l ack of detailed information related to an

as y l u m claim provided in a non-asylum proceeding
, when consistent with the requirements of the proceeding
, cannot on its own result in a

n adverse credibility finding

. We also hold that an I J may

not make an adverse credibility finding based solely on speculation that an asy lum a p plicant should have been capable of providing more detail r elated to a n asy lum claim in an earlier non-asy lum proceeding

.B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 14

B a ssene filed the N -400 citiz e n ship application pro se

. W e are g uided by the principle that “asy lum forms filled out by people who a

re unab l e t o retain counsel should b e read charitably
, especially when it comes to the absence of a comprehensive and thoroug h account of all past instances o f persecutio n

. ” Smolniakova
, 4 2 2 F .3d at 1045 (internal quotation marks omitted). W e recently stated that “[ o] missions [ in I -589 asy l u m a p plications] are not g iven much sig nificance because ap p l i c ants usually do not speak Eng lish and are not represented by counsel.” Kin v. Holder
, 59 5 F. 3d 1 050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2 010). W e g ive B a ssene’s omission of his arrest and d etention e ven less weig ht because he completed an N-400 citiz enship application, r ather than an I -589 asy lum application, and properly complied with the require m e n ts set forth in h is N-400 citiz enship application. The I -589 asy lum application would have at least p rompted B assene to provide information o n p o litical a nd ethnic persecution, whereas the N-400 citiz ensh i p application did
not.

B a ssene’s mistakenly filed N-400 citiz enship a pplication is akin to early -stag e asy lum proceeding s like b ond hearing s, airport interviews, and asy lum interviews. The differences in detail between statements made during le s s formal proceeding s and later formal proceeding s may not be used to undermine an applicant’s credibility

. I n Joseph v. Holder
, for

ex a mple, we “rejected [ an] adverse credibility f inding [ ] that relied on differences between s t atements a p etitioner made during removal proceeding s and those made during [ a] l ess formal,

. . . u nrecorded [bond hearing ] .” 600 F .3d a t 1 243. W e reasoned that a

n I J ’ s credibility finding during a removal hearing may not rely o n s t a tements made by the applicant during less formal proceeding s. Id. a t 1244.B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 15

I n so h olding
, Joseph relied o n precedent ex plaining that airport interviews and asy lum interviews do not r equire the

same level of detail as later formal procee d i n g s. See Arulampalam v. Ashcroft
, 353 F .3d 679, 688 ( 9th Cir. 2 003) (holding that petitioner’s omission d ur i n g a n a irport interview of specific details of torture that w ere revealed later a t t he removal hearing d i d not support a neg ative credibility finding ); Singh v. INS
, 292 F .3d 1017, 1021–24 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that an adverse c redib i l ity finding could not rest solely on the fact that a n applicant provided less detail in his sta t e m ents at the airport than he did a t his subsequent hearing ) ; see also Singh v. Gon zales
, 403 F .3d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( holding that a contradiction between a petitioner’s a sy lum interview, where the int erview was not recorded and notes were taken by hand, and removal h earing
te s t i m o ny was not substantial evidence to justify an adverse credibility f

inding ). The lack of detail in B a ssene’s mistakenly filed but properly complet e d N-400 c itiz e nship application
, does not o n its own undermine B a ssene’s credibility

in his asy lum proceeding

.

The la c k of d etail in B assene’s N-400 c itiz e nship applica t i on a

nd speculation that B assene was capable o f providing information on political and ethnic persecution does not “bear a leg itimate nex us to the [B I A’s] finding ” that B assene is not credible. Salaam v. INS
, 229 F .3d 1234, 1238 (9th Cir. 2000) ( per curiam) (internal quotation m a rks omitted).B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 16

B. The P urported Inconsistencies betw een Bassene’s N400 Citizenship Application a nd His I-589 Asylum Application Do N o t Support t he BIA’s Adverse Credibility F inding

W h en taking both of B ass en e ’ s applications tog ether, B assene’s N-400 citiz enship application was not inconsistent with his I

- 589 a sy lum application. The B I A believed that the
two appli c at ions lacked “ sufficient consistency ” because B assene f

ailed to disclose his arrest and detent i o n by the Seneg alese military and h is forced membership in the MF DC in his N-400 c itiz enship application. Viewing the purported inconsistencies “in lig ht of all the evidence presented i n t he case” reveals that the applications w ere not inconsistent. Kaur v. Gonzales
, 418 F .3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2 005). I n B assene’s N-400 citiz enship application, Ba ssene correctly answered that he had not been arrested for unlawful conduct for “breaking or violating a ny law o r ordinance.” Here, B assene was a rrested because the Seneg alese military incorrectly identified him as a member of the MF DC’s armed wing

. B assene was also truthful in declining to list his forced membership in the MF DC in h is N-400 c itiz e nship application. B assene ag r eed to carry an MF DC membership card a nd pay a t ax to the MF DC only after six g unmen entered his home and forcefully recruited him and h is f ather.

F or these reasons, the claimed inconsistency between the
two applications is not supported by substantial evidence. I n addition, B assene appropriately answe r ed his N-400 citiz enship application.B A S S E N E V

. H O L D E R 17

CONCLUSION

The B I A has not eva l u a t ed B assene’s elig ibility for
asy lum based o n his fear of persecution in Seneg al. W e g rant B assene’s petition for revi e w , v acate the B I A’s adverse credibility finding
, a

n d remand the case to the B I A for f urther consideration and investig a tion in lig h t of our r uling that the petiti o n er is c redible. Guo v. A shcroft
, 361 F .3d 1194, 1203–04 ( 9th Cir. 2004) (citing INS v. Ventura
, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002)).

P E T I T I O N G R A N T E D ; R E V E R S E D a n d REMANDED.